Croes Stephen v. State ( 2006 )

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 25, 2006

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 25, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-06-00361-CR

____________

STEPHEN E. CROES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 5

Harris County, Texas

Lower Court Cause No. 5465

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

After a bench trial in municipal court, on April 18, 2005, appellant was convicted of speeding and assessed a fine in the amount of $150.^[1]  On June 3, 2005, the municipal court denied appellant=s motion for new trial.  Appellant then appealed to the County Criminal Court at Law.  See Tex. Gov=t Code Ann. ' 30.00014(a) (Vernon 2004).  By order signed February 21, 2006, the county court affirmed the municipal court=s judgment.  Appellant did not file his notice of appeal from the county court=s judgment until more than thirty days later, on April 24, 2006.^[2]  See Tex. Gov=t Code Ann. ' 30.00027(a) (Vernon 2004) (granting the right to appeal to the court of appeals if the fine assessed exceeds $100). 

A defendant=s notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the court enters an appealable order.  See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1).  A notice of appeal which complies with the requirements of Rule 26 is essential to vest the court of appeals with jurisdiction.  Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). If an appeal is not timely perfected, a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal.  Under those circumstances it can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal. Id.

Appellant filed a pro se response to this court=s notice of our intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Appellant=s only cited authority does not support his contention that his appeal was timely perfected.  See Owen v. Hodge, 874 S.W.2d 301, 303 (Tex. App.CHouston [1st Dist.] 1994, no writ) (holding that an unverified motion to reinstate does not extend the time for perfecting an appeal from an order dismissing for want of prosecution). 

Because appellant=s notice of appeal was untimely, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed May 25, 2006.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Yates and Guzman.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

---

^[1]   Trial was held in cause number 09752430-5-1 in the City of Houston Municipal Court No. 7, a municipal court of record.  See Tex. Gov=t Code Ann. ' 30.00003 (Vernon 2004).

^[2]  Appellant=s notice of appeal is dated March 15, 2006.  The envelope in which the notice was mailed is included in our record, and it bears a postmark of April 20, 2006.  Accordingly, the mailing rule will not operate to render the notice of appeal timely. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(b).